If the brain is necessary to have a vision

Hans Blaster · Monday at 10:00 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
I can't help you with longitudinal data about views about consciousness directly. However, the idea that dualism is the majority idea among those who work with it seems to be faulty.

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/5010?

Please look at the link, the image doesn't show all outcomes. More info about the survey in post #130

View attachment 374705

Thanks. It is too bad that this is merely philosophers.

Fervent · Monday at 10:14 AM

Larniavc said:
Then the question has little use and can be discarded until such time that it does.

Says you, but if that's the case then we can't really say anything about what kinds of things exist at all so the whole enterprise of human knowledge falls apart

Larniavc said:
We text thoughts in brains. Not absent brains.

This in no way makes the notion that thoughts are purely by-products of brains "obvious', especially considering most people across history take dualism as primary unless taught otherwise.

stevevw · Monday at 10:17 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
What do you mean with established then? That thoughts about dualism exist? If so, yes. That most of those who work in the field believe it? If so, no. If you filter the results you'll see that a majority of those who specialize in theory of mind lean towards physicalism.

No none of that. Just simply there has been an increase in the acceptance and use of ideas beyond the material brain hypothesis. Its well established that this is the case.

I said this as a way to show that this is not some fringe movement as Hans so often tries to make every alternative ideas proposed. Its real and its scientific and its increasing in popularity for good reasons. Give it about another 20 years and it will be the majority view. Paradigm shifts take time lol.

Stopped_lurking said:
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874?aos=16

View attachment 374713

It seems that you use established in the meaning of that somebody have proposed it, sure Descartes did that. To me established would mean that it have been determined to be true or at least most likely.

No if you would have read my original point it was about this rising openness not being some whacko fad or latest trend that skeptics try to make out. That its recieving increasing mainstream acceptance. I liked the evidence for increases in articles and the growing number of theories that psoulate consciousness or Mind or info beyond the brain or material world.

Go back 20 or 30 years and there were no where near as many and what there was was on the fringe and being touted as Woo. Now the same ideas are recieving mainstream acceptance. Not the majority and that was never my point. Rather that it has gradually become more acceptable.

Stopped_lurking said:
Your last article by Maria Strømme doesn't include any experimental results, she gives a highly speculative framework. Nothing she proposes have been confirmed. Even if she is correct (it would be interesting), what she describes is still not beyond the physical.

See this is what I think is double standards. I just spent pages having to jump through hoops about credible sources. Yet here you are giving your personal opinion as though its peer reviwed. Please be consistent. If you think this is wrong then make a peer reviewed article. Otherwise we can be guessing and disagreeing all day long.

But at this stage I was not interested in specific articles as being correct. But the fact that good and legit scientists, in this case a Physicist and Material scientist is open tyo such ideas.

Showing how mainstream this has become. Because as she says there material paradigm offers no way forward but such ideas like these do.

By the way I am interested in what sort of experimentation would need to show consciousness beyond brain. What sort of experiments do you think would show this.

Here is the mathmatical framework for her theory.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Universal-consciousness-as-foundational-field-A

Fervent · Monday at 10:18 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
What do you mean with established then? That thoughts about dualism exist? If so, yes. That most of those who work in the field believe it? If so, no. If you filter the results you'll see that a majority of those who specialize in theory of mind lean towards physicalism.

This is a by-product of peer pressure, most in the field fear dualism and the quickest way to get shut out is to suggest dualism. And saying they lean towards "physicalism" is misleading since "physicalism" is a poorly defined concept because its referrent is either some perfect physical theory that no one knows the contents of, or the current theories which are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

Hans Blaster · Monday at 10:29 AM

stevevw said:
Within those magazine articles were links to the peer review science. I also linked peer review sciences that did longitude research and support that theres been an increase.

The magazine articles link to those rare articles in the literature, but that is not evidence that there is a lot of them or it is the dominant idea.

stevevw said:
Then how does it work when theres no stats to find. We go to the next best thing peer review. I said if you want to keep demanding stats then I said find them yourself as you are the one insisting when there are none.

I will say it again. There are none for this particular issue. Even your own side admitted this. Your now demanding something that is not available. So now we need to deal with the facts in the peer review articles that did do longitude studies. This evidence now stands.

This is unfortunate, for you. It does mean that you can't make your "it's really popular" or the "new dominant paradigm" in pyschology/neurology or in physics. Oh well. I was hoping you could back your claims of prominence in those fields of

stevevw said:
We can talk beforehand about the facts in the peer reviwe articles I linked. You demand peer review as a legitimate source and now I have provided that. Unless you still demand stats and want to ignore good science.

My problem is why should I care about a few random articles that made it through peer review? The literature is full of speculative ideas that have been peer reviewed. That doesn't make any of them correct.

stevevw · Monday at 11:02 AM

Hans Blaster said:
The magazine articles link to those rare articles in the literature, but that is not evidence that there is a lot of them or it is the dominant idea.

I didn't say that these emerging ideas are dominating the sciences or that there is a lot of them compared to other articles. I said that there has been an increase in openness to these ideas which is showing a trend to further increasing as an area of research.

That compared to 20 or 30 years ago there was not as much openness and in fact many of these ideas did not even make it into mainstream journals. Now they are.

Hans Blaster said:
This is unfortunate, for you. It does mean that you can't make your "it's really popular" or the "new dominant paradigm" in pyschology/neurology or in physics. Oh well. I was hoping you could back your claims of prominence in those fields of

So why does the peer reviwed articles for longitude and Bibliometric Analysis count. You often demand peer reviewed science and here we have peer reviwed science.

This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain held on the main scientific databases (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Scopus).

Over the decades, there was an evident increase in the number of articles on all the areas of the field, with the exception of studies on mediumship that showed a decline during the late 20th century and subsequent rise in the early 21st century.

A rise in the 21st century. Thats just in recent times. I wonder why.

Hans Blaster said:
My problem is why should I care about a few random articles that made it through peer review? The literature is full of speculative ideas that have been peer reviewed. That doesn't make any of them correct.

I find it funny that you demand peer review and then when it provides stuff you don't like suddenly its not so good afterall.

Like I said I could get 1,000s of these kind of articcles. many with good scientific evidence. They are popping up everywhere in mainstream sciences. If its the case they are all just crazy ideas with no value then its only making peer review look bad and discrediting anything it says.

Even the language that this represents only a few random articles is loaded with bias before any real investigation is made. Like I said peoples prior worldview beliefs can bias how they see things.

Many disagree and they are not nutters but becoming a big part of science and philosophy.

AI Overview

There isn't a single count, but countless articles explore consciousness beyond the brain, spanning physics (panpsychism), philosophy (idealism, integrated information theory), spirituality (levels of awareness, oneness), and theoretical neuroscience proposing non-local consciousness, with platforms like ScienceDirect and PMC hosting many papers suggesting consciousness might be fundamental, not just brain-generated, challenging purely materialistic views.

sjastro · Monday at 11:39 AM

@stevevw why don't you address @Ophiolite's concerns?
As I pointed out quantum decoherence essentially reduces the role of consciousness in QM to a philosophical argument but since you don't want to provide numbers I will.

Topic Estimated Peer-Reviewed Articles
Quantum Decoherence ~10,000 to 50,000+
Consciousness in QM ~100 to 1,000

Decoherence is a staple in major physics journals (e.g., Physical Review, Physics Reports, Journal of Physics A, New Journal of Physics, Nature Physics).
Review articles like Schlosshauer’s Quantum Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition survey hundreds of papers and are themselves highly cited.
As pointed out decoherence is central to quantum computing research, which alone generates thousands of publications per year where decoherence is a key issue.

The idea that consciousness affects is integral to quantum mechanics is much smaller and far more speculative:

This subject appears mainly in cross-disciplinary, philosophical, or fringe science journals, and occasionally in mainstream journals when framed as philosophy of measurement or interpretation.

There are some peer-reviewed publications exploring links between quantum theories and consciousness, but these are a tiny fraction compared to decoherence literature and often debated in terms of scientific rigor.

partinobodycular · Monday at 12:06 PM

stevevw said:
Panpsychism has experienced a notable resurgence and increased discussion in recent years within philosophical and scientific communities, including mentions in science journals and serious publications. This revival is primarily driven by the ongoing challenges in explaining consciousness through conventional physicalist approaches.

AI Overview

There has been an evident increase in scientific publications and discussions regarding the concept of "consciousness beyond the brain" in recent years, though it remains a controversial and non-mainstream topic within academia. This growth is largely centered around the study of anomalous experiences and alternative theoretical frameworks, rather than widespread acceptance of the idea as a proven fact.

Increased Publications: A bibliometric analysis confirmed an increase in the number of articles on experiences related to the possibility of consciousness existing independently of the brain, such as near-death experiences (NDEs), out-of-body experiences, and mediumship.

Mainstream Engagement: Major scientific publishers, including Springer Nature and the American Psychological Association, have recently released books and journal special issues discussing scientific evidence and arguments for the "mind beyond the brain" hypothesis, a notable shift from past marginalization.

Focus on Alternative Theories: While mainstream neuroscience largely maintains that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, a growing number of peer-reviewed articles explore non-materialistic models,

In essence, the discussion and investigation into models of consciousness that are not solely brain-dependent have become more prominent in scientific literature, reflecting a maturation of the field and a willingness to explore a wider range of theories.

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output - PubMed

This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain held on the main scientific databases (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Scopus). Of the 9065...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I have no problem with accepting that there's been an increase in the number of articles... academic or otherwise, concerning alternative explanations for consciousness. But unless you're advocating for an argumentum ad populum, you're going to have to demonstrate that these articles actually have supporting evidence and aren't just speculative.

Theories about multiverses are also popular, but at least they have the support of mathematical models. What do your articles have?

Hans Blaster · Monday at 12:07 PM

stevevw said:
I didn't say that these emerging ideas are dominating the sciences or that there is a lot of them compared to other articles. I said that there has been an increase in openness to these ideas which is showing a trend to further increasing as an area of research.

That compared to 20 or 30 years ago there was not as much openness and in fact many of these ideas did not even make it into mainstream journals. Now they are.

So why does the peer reviwed articles for longitude and Bibliometric Analysis count. You often demand peer reviewed science and here we have peer reviwed science.

This study aims to conduct a search of publications investigating experiences commonly associated with the possibility of the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain held on the main scientific databases (Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Scopus).

Over the decades, there was an evident increase in the number of articles on all the areas of the field, with the exception of studies on mediumship that showed a decline during the late 20th century and subsequent rise in the early 21st century.

A rise in the 21st century. Thats just in recent times. I wonder why.

Is this that study I responded to earlier? The one cataloging NDEs and other woo and calling it "consciousness research"? It looks like it.

stevevw said:
I find it funny that you demand peer review and then when it provides stuff you don't like suddenly its not so good afterall.

The only thing you found wasn't relevant. That's OK. I guess it doesn't exist. Such things happen. Not every thing you'd like to exist does. (Which is why studies are sometimes done -- because they don't exist yet.)

stevevw said:
Like I said I could get 1,000s of these kind of articcles. many with good scientific evidence. They are popping up everywhere in mainstream sciences. If its the case they are all just crazy ideas with no value then its only making peer review look bad and discrediting anything it says.

Even the language that this represents only a few random articles is loaded with bias before any real investigation is made. Like I said peoples prior worldview beliefs can bias how they see things.

Many disagree and they are not nutters but becoming a big part of science and philosophy.

I've seen nothing more than the usual trickle of these papers, like the random paper you posted from some random Swedish nano-materials researcher.

stevevw said:
AI Overview

There isn't a single count, but countless articles explore consciousness beyond the brain, spanning physics (panpsychism), philosophy (idealism, integrated information theory), spirituality (levels of awareness, oneness), and theoretical neuroscience proposing non-local consciousness, with platforms like ScienceDirect and PMC hosting many papers suggesting consciousness might be fundamental, not just brain-generated, challenging purely materialistic views.

Good grief these AIs are useless. They are computers writing about countable items and they call them "countless." SMH.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Monday at 12:54 PM

stevevw said:
You can't just answer a simple question. You have to turn it into a personal jibe. Show methen. Answer the simple question.

Post #98 is a clear example of circular logic: "And where did this theory come from. A mind did it not lol. Without a mind there would be no such theory. In 100 years there may be a completely different theory just as there is now compared to 100 years ago. The one comon denominator in all this is the mind itself."

Nothing of what you said is any proof or evidence at all that consciousness exists outside of the human brain.

Hans Blaster · Monday at 1:51 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Post #98 is a clear example of circular logic: "And where did this theory come from. A mind did it not lol. Without a mind there would be no such theory. In 100 years there may be a completely different theory just as there is now compared to 100 years ago. The one comon denominator in all this is the mind itself."

Nothing of what you said is any proof or evidence at all that consciousness exists outside of the human brain.

It's the other half of the argument "only a mind could invent a mind". An apologetic argument I have heard many times before. As presented in post #98, it is one of the most inane things I've seen here. Of course a mind came up with QED. We know the name of the minds that did it.

BCP1928 · Monday at 1:51 PM

stevevw said:
No none of that. Just simply there has been an increase in the acceptance and use of ideas beyond the material brain hypothesis. Its well established that this is the case.

I said this as a way to show that this is not some fringe movement as Hans so often tries to make every alternative ideas proposed. Its real and its scientific and its increasing in popularity for good reasons. Give it about another 20 years and it will be the majority view. Paradigm shifts take time lol.

No if you would have read my original point it was about this rising openness not being some whacko fad or latest trend that skeptics try to make out. That its recieving increasing mainstream acceptance. I liked the evidence for increases in articles and the growing number of theories that psoulate consciousness or Mind or info beyond the brain or material world.

Go back 20 or 30 years and there were no where near as many and what there was was on the fringe and being touted as Woo. Now the same ideas are recieving mainstream acceptance. Not the majority and that was never my point. Rather that it has gradually become more acceptable.

See this is what I think is double standards. I just spent pages having to jump through hoops about credible sources. Yet here you are giving your personal opinion as though its peer reviwed. Please be consistent. If you think this is wrong then make a peer reviewed article. Otherwise we can be guessing and disagreeing all day long.

But at this stage I was not interested in specific articles as being correct. But the fact that good and legit scientists, in this case a Physicist and Material scientist is open tyo such ideas.

Showing how mainstream this has become. Because as she says there material paradigm offers no way forward but such ideas like these do.

By the way I am interested in what sort of experimentation would need to show consciousness beyond brain. What sort of experiments do you think would show this.

Here is the mathmatical framework for her theory.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Universal-consciousness-as-foundational-field-A

It doesn't matter whether the idea is mainstream or not, and for the most part here nobody is arguing against it. What we are trying to convey to you is that your arguments for it are lame and unconvincing.

Stopped_lurking · Monday at 1:51 PM

Fervent said:
This is a by-product of peer pressure, most in the field fear dualism and the quickest way to get shut out is to suggest dualism.

Are you active in the field yourself? I'm not, but I wonder why you can say this with any degree of certainty.

Fervent said:
And saying they lean towards "physicalism" is misleading since "physicalism" is a poorly defined concept because its referrent is either some perfect physical theory that no one knows the contents of, or the current theories which are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

"Accept or lean towards physicalism" was the answer to the question. David Chalmers is one of the authors of the article on the survey, is he not a prominent proponent of property dualism.

Did you mean substance dualism in particular?

Larniavc · Monday at 1:51 PM

Fervent said:
Says you, but if that's the case then we can't really say anything about what kinds of things exist at all so the whole enterprise of human knowledge falls apart

We can't know everything but what we do know is a great deal; and that doesn't include what you are proposing.

Larniavc · Monday at 1:53 PM

Fervent said:
This in no way makes the notion that thoughts are purely by-products of brains "obvious', especially considering most people across history take dualism as primary unless taught otherwise.

Yeah it does. Appeals to tradition do not count.

Fervent · Monday at 2:07 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
Are you active in the field yourself? I'm not, but I wonder why you can say this with any degree of certainty.

Not personally, but I know some people who are. Philosophy at the level of peer review is very much a hive mind with only limited departures being tolerated. It's one of the drawbacks of peer review in humanities in general, such as the field I am active in in which calling yourself a panentheist is the quickest way to get shunned.

Stopped_lurking said:
"Accept or lean towards physicalism" was the answer to the question. David Chalmers is one of the authors of the article on the survey, is he not a prominent proponent of property dualism.

Property dualism is still monism, and tends to be a compromise from physicalists since it tends to be a non-reductive physicalist position.

Stopped_lurking said:
Did you mean substance dualism in particular?

Substance dualism is the most likely to be dismissed outright, but expressing softer dualisms like hylomorphism also likely leads to ostracization and derision.

Fervent · Monday at 2:09 PM

BCP1928 said:
It doesn't matter whether the idea is mainstream or not, and for the most part here nobody is arguing against it. What we are trying to convey to you is that your arguments for it are lame and unconvincing.

No one has criticized my argument, besides perhaps your flippant accusation of being "newtonian". And I haven't presented any true arguments in favor of my position, only a loose inductive argument for skepticism towards physicalism.

Fervent · Monday at 2:12 PM

Larniavc said:
Yeah it does. Appeals to tradition do not count.

In order for something to be "obvious" it must be how ignorant individuals are first struck. There's no appeal to tradition, simply pointing out that someone had to teach you what you call "obvious", and those who are untaught are immediately struck by the opposite inclination. So no, it doesn't.

sjastro · Monday at 2:30 PM

Hans Blaster said:
It's the other half of the argument "only a mind could invent a mind". An apologetic argument I have heard many times before. As presented in post #98, it is one of the most inane things I've seen here. Of course a mind came up with QED. We know the name of the minds that did it.

Not only inane but also contradictory. He seems to forgotten he supports panpsychism as a form of science in which case "only a mind could invent a mind" should read "only an object could invent a mind".
When confronted with challenging problems I used to pace aimlessly in the company carpark looking for inspiration, maybe this was panpsychism at work where the carpark communicated ideas to me.

BCP1928 · Monday at 2:44 PM

Fervent said:
No one has criticized my argument, besides perhaps your flippant accusation of being "newtonian". And I haven't presented any true arguments in favor of my position, only a loose inductive argument for skepticism towards physicalism.

I was responding to Steve, but it's a common occurrence, a malady which afflicts all of us from time to time. That is, the lamentable tendency to confound one's thesis with its argument, and then to regard any criticism of the argument as an attack on the thesis itself--which in these religious forums is generally an unfalsifiable proposition anyway.

Topic	Estimated Peer-Reviewed Articles
Quantum Decoherence	~10,000 to 50,000+
Consciousness in QM	~100 to 1,000

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

If the brain is necessary to have a vision

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

inquisitive

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output​

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output